Posted on 04/04/2016 8:10:36 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Here’s a simple question that desperately needs an answer.
Donald Trump won the Arizona primary in a landslide, 47.1 percent to Ted Cruz’s 24.9 percent, giving the GOP front-runner all 58 of that winner-take-all state’s delegates.
Right now, the Cruz campaign is engaged in a “furious” on-the-ground campaign in Arizona – and in other states won by Trump, including Louisiana, Georgia and Tennessee – to convert Trump delegates into Cruz delegates on a second ballot, should there be a contested GOP convention this summer.
The question is: Is this moral?
Trump calls it “crooked as hell.” But let’s back up a little.
As the Washington Examiner reported Monday, in a story headlined “Cruz snaring Trump’s Arizona delegates” and posted in the lead position of the Drudge Report:
Sen. Ted Cruz is out-hustling Donald Trump and looks set to ensure many Arizona delegates will defect to him in a convention floor fight.
The Texas senator, who ever since Iowa has played a stealthy ground game in contrast to Trump’s chaotic populism, is taking steps to snatch the Republican presidential nomination from The Donald at the convention in July.
The New York businessman easily won last month’s Arizona primary taking 47 percent to Cruz’s 25 percent, scooping up all 58 of the state’s delegates. That’s nearly 5 percent of the 1,237 Trump needs for the nomination, and they’re tied to him on the first ballot.
But Cruz, exploiting deep opposition to Trump among grass-roots Republicans, has been far more active in Arizona than Trump, insiders say. He’s recruiting candidates for the available 55 delegate slots, that along with the other three delegate positions filled by party leaders, would be allowed to vote for him in a multi-ballot contested convention.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Cruz does talk issues, you just don’t hear him.
That poster is a female; believe it or not.
By the ROMNEY people; NOT the RNC !
We will!
I highly doubt thay if their roles were reversed and Trump was using the system to convert elected Cruz delegates to Trump ones, that you’d be saying, it’s in the rulebook and Trump just plays it better. No, you’d say Trump is being a sleazy con man bc you support Cruz.
People can say Cruz is just playing the game better, but I don’t think the people’s choices for delegates should be a back room game for only those with the elite on their side. The voters voted for Trump delegates, not Cruz delegates who just have to vote for Trump by law on the first ballot...corruption at its finest.
Even though I am a trump supporter, I cannot say that Trump is an ideal candidate to me.
The only person that I know of in my life that was an ideal candidate was Ronald Reagan.
That was a man I could vote for, but was not old enough to vote for, without any reservation whatsoever.
Trump’s appeal to me is that he’s an amateur politician. His biggest weakness is also that he’s an amateur politician. It cuts both ways sadly.
It’s hard to trust anyone who wants power over me.
I trust people who don’t want power over me.
I’m not certain that there is any civil solution to America’s direction anymore.
That’s likely what’s happening....$$ - or SOMETHING - being offered. Now we now why all of that PAC $$ was needed :(
The Founders did not create the parties and their rules. It is healthy for the American public, both parties, to be examining the delegate situation. Bernie’s devotees will be just as mad as Trumpsters if their candidates are rickidooed out of their winnings.
I think we need to go back and look at the original intent. I was wondering today, what the Founders actually intended with respect to how elections should be run, and while they didn’t create the parties, they pretty much appeared on the scene very early on.
Not a historian here, but I’m glad everyone is getting a giant civics lesson this election cycle. The whole delegate/party set-up bears examination and debate.
Perception would perhaps aid you in your narrow view on your saint.
It’s not a question of being ‘smarter’, actually that’s another debate entirely - did Ted ever have a non-government job?
It’s a matter of honor and decency and THAT is what makes him look and act a fool and a tool. He’s so smart he can’t even tell he’s being used? Some genius!
People detest being misled and regardless of how many times the GOPe squad rolls out new improved rules, the moniker of lying Ted is sticking, and rightfully so.
Enjoy your made up world 2nd, where lying is moral and cheating is honorable...oh, and losing is ‘winning’.
Odd
We live in weird times don’t we!
I wouldn’t object to a tit-for-tat targeted tariff, but Trump went further than that. He said to stop a U.S. company from going overseas, he would promise to put a tariff on any goods they tried to import here. That isn’t a trade war with a foreign country. That’s punishing an American company. This is not a communist country. We don’t build walls to keep people in.
Cruz should step down when Trump gets a majority of the delegates, or the math makes it clear Trump will get a majority. Right now, neither you nor I know if the majority of the GOP measured by either popular vote or delegates wants someone other than Trump. That’s why many elections have a rule that says no one wins until they get 50% of the vote or of the delegates. That’s why we have run-off elections and why the Electoral College requires a majority of electors to award the presidency. Until a majority is demonstrated, we do not know if 50% + 1 are totally opposed to a candidate. Majority does rule in elections, but until you show you have 50% + 1, the majority hasn’t made a declaration.
That’s likely what’s happening....$$ - or SOMETHING - being offered. Now we now why all of that PAC $$ was needed :(
Sorry Jane a move like that would constitute a felony charge.
Simple math says the delegates have to change their “bound” vote on the second ballot if there is no majority winner or the convention is deadlocked.
Majority winner, not plurality, has been the longstanding traditional rule, both in the electoral college and the conventions. The rules have been changed over the years to bring more popular vote into it, and “bind” the delegates on the first ballot (some states go further than first). But at least three states don’t bind their delegates at all.
The delegates are not all elite. They’re almost certainly very politically active Republicans, but they’re far less elite than even House members, and anyone can run for that position.
There are very few rules or laws saying that a candidate cannot do everything to persuade a candidate, short of outright bribery.
If the primary results are inconclusive, with no one getting 50% of the popular vote, than the delegates voting at the convention is as good a way to resolve it as anybody. Just as Dewhurst lost to Cruz in a run-off after Dewhurst was the top vote-getter with 46% of the vote, until you hold a new vote, you don’t know if over 50% of the people wanted someone other than the plurality winner. And going with 50% + 1 is always more democratic than going with less than that.
State representation was much more important to the founders than it is to modern politicians. Senators were not directly elected by the people. States still have some of their own discretion on how they award electoral college votes and party delegates. The delegate process is very similar to the electoral college process, with states picking electors who traditionally follow how their state voted. But the convention delegate process is more democratic in a way. If the electoral college fails to vote a majority for a candidate, a smaller body of state representatives decides on the president. At the convention, the actual delegates continue re-voting until they find a majority consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29
The Twelfth Amendment provides for what happens if the Electoral College fails to elect a president or vice president. If no candidate receives a majority for president, then the House of Representatives will select the president, with each state delegation (instead of each representative) having only one vote.
On four occasions, most recently in 2000, the Electoral College system has resulted in the election of a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes in the election.[6][7]
So which state would it be okay for Trump to cut a backroom deal with so that he can “steal” their delegates win on the second ballot? Maine? Utah? Oklahoma?
Cruz vigorously fought to pass Kate's Law. O'Reilly just tonight gave Cruz a shout out for doing so.
LOL! You just fall off the turnip truck, JPX?
Cruz doesn't bring in any new voters to the polls in the general.
Matter of fact, he's scaring them off in Wisconsin with his textbook "conservative" abortion stance.
Cruz can can kife the nomination from Trump all he wants - he won't kife the new Trump voters.
And so, he'll deliver the White House to a Hillary, or whoever her replacement is...
Nice catch. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.